Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming the judgment of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) concluding that DHHS had overpaid OMNI Behavioral Health (OMNI) under a contract, holding that there was no merit to the errors assigned by OMNI.Under the contract at issue, OMNI agreed to operate a group home and provide services for individuals with developmental disabilities. In 2018, DHHS issued a notice of overpayment to OMNI determining that OMNI was overpaid under the contract by $34,876. After a hearing, hearing officer recommended that DHHS' finding of an overpayment be affirmed. The director of the Division of Developmental Disabilities adopted the hearing officer's order as the final order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no merit to the errors assigned by OMNI. View "OMNI Behavioral Health v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed all of Defendant's convictions with the exception of the misdemeanor violation of carrying a concealed weapon in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-1202, which the court reversed and remanded with directions to vacate, holding that the insufficient to support the conviction for carrying a concealed weapon.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court for York County was the proper venue in which to bring charges against Defendant; (2) the district court did not err by commencing the trial without appointing him counsel or standby counsel; (3) the district court did not violate Defendant's right to be present when it commenced trial with Defendant's representing himself pro se and when it continued with the trial after Defendant failed to reappear following noon recess; and (4) while the evidence was sufficient to support the majority of Defendant's convictions, there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that Defendant was carrying a weapon concealed on or about his person. View "State v. Warlick" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant's pro se motion for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing, holding that Defendant's claims were all either procedurally barred, based upon mere conclusions of fact and law, or refuted by the trial record.Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and other offenses. In his pro se motion for postconviction relief, Defendant argued (1) law enforcement extracted information from his cell phone before the crime occurred and unlawfully searched the phone before obtaining a warrant, (2) the State committed a Brady violation, (3) there were various acts of prosecutorial misconduct committed during trial, and (4) both trial counsel and appellate counsel were ineffective. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's denial of postconviction relief, holding that there was no merit to Defendant's assignments of error. View "State v. Stelly" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court finding that the divorce decree in this case required Father to pay for his daughter's college education and automobile, holding that there was no merit to Father's arguments on appeal.In this contempt proceeding, the district court concluded that the decree clearly required Father to pay the automobile expenses and ordered him to provide Mother with documentation of the college savings account for his daughter. On appeal, Father argued that the district court order was punitive and thus wrong entered in a civil contempt proceeding, and that the district court should have found that he was not obligated to pay for the college and car expenses because his daughter had repudiated her relationship with him. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in rejecting Father's arguments and requiring that he pay his daughter's college and automobile expenses. View "Johnson v. Johnson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming the decision of the State Personnel Board determining that an award of "front pay," commonly viewed as money awarded in lieu of employment reinstatement, was not appropriate, holding that there were no errors in the record.After the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) terminated Appellant's job as a health program manager, Appellant challenged the termination. Appellant sought lost wages, including lost benefits, front pay, and back pay. DHHS eventually withdrew the allegations against Appellant but contested his claim for front pay. The district court concluded that the Personnel Board lacked authority to grant the equitable relief of front pay. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it found that Appellant could be reinstated and, therefore, Appellant's claim for front pay was properly denied. View "Christopherson v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs." on Justia Law

In these consolidated appeals, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court's dismissal of separate actions challenging the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS) denial of an administrative appeal hearing, holding that the district court correctly determined that the hearing request was untimely submitted to DHHS under the governing regulation.Robert Colwell, DDS, P.C., was a Nebraska corporation through which Colwell (collectively, Colwell) provided medical services. Colwell entered into an agreement with Managed Care of North America (MCNA), which provided managed care services to Nebraska's Medicaid program, agreeing to provide dental services for individuals enrolled in Nebraska Medicaid. When MCNA allegedly failed to compensate Colwell for covered services, Colwell filed one action challenging the MCNA's decision to terminate the Medicaid provider agreement with Colwell. In this action, Colwell filed a request for a fair hearing with DHHS, which DHHS denied and dismissed. Colwell then filed another action challenging the DHHS order of dismissal. The district court dismissed both appeals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Colwell's request for a hearing before DHHS was not timely filed within ninety days of the "date of the action." View "Colwell v. Managed Care of North America" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant's motion for postconviction relief, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing the motion for postconviction relief.Defendant was convicted of one count of theft by unlawful taking, one count of attempted theft by unlawful taking, and one count of abuse of a vulnerable adult. In his postconviction motion, Defendant alleged that his counsel was ineffective for failing to file a direct appeal when he was directed to do so. The district court denied the motion following a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly found that Defendant was not deficient in failing to file a direct appeal. View "State v. Combs" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the district court granted summary judgment to Defendants in this medical malpractice action, holding that the district court erred in excluding certain testimony.Joaquin Rojas was five years old when he suffered a brain injury. Plaintiffs, the child's parents, sued Dr. Corey Joekel and Joekel's employer, Nebraska Pediatric Practice, Inc., alleging that Joekel misdiagnosed and failed to treat Joaquin's condition. Based on Defendants' objection, the district court found inadmissible the expert testimony of Plaintiffs' key witness, Dr. Todd Lawrence. The district court then granted summary judgment for Defendants on the basis that, without Dr. Lawrence's testimony, Plaintiffs could not prove causation. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court erred in excluding Dr. Lawrence's testimony; and (2) because the testimony raised a genuine dispute about causation, summary judgment was unwarranted. View "Gonzales v. Nebraska Pediatric Practice" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment to Defendants in this wrongful death action, holding that the district court properly found that Defendants owed no legal duty under the circumstances.Mikael Loyd was a patient for six days at Lasting Hope Recovery Center, a mental health facility, where he was treated by a psychiatrist employed by the University of Nebraska Medical Center Physicians (UNMC Physicians). The day he was released Loyd killed his ex-girlfriend, Melissa Rodriguez. As special administrator's for Melissa's estate, her parents brought this action against Lasting Hope and UNMC Physicians for failing to warn and protect Melissa from Loyd. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants, concluding that they owed no legal duty to Melissa. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Melissa's death was not legally attributable to the breach of duty by Defendants because Loyd never communicated to them that he intended to harm Melissa. View "Rodriguez v. Lasting Hope Recovery Center" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and vacated in part the sentences imposed upon Defendant for his plea-based convictions for one Class IIA felony and three Class IV felonies, holding that Defendant's three sentences for Class IV felonies were plain error.Defendant was sentenced to consecutive terms of eight to sixteen years' imprisonment for the Class IIA felony and two years' imprisonment for each Class IV felony. On appeal, Defendant argued that the terms of his total sentence were excessive. The Supreme Court affirmed the sentence for Defendant's Class IIA felony but vacated the sentences imposed for his Class IV felonies and remanded the cause for resentencing, holding (1) Defendant's sentences were not excessive; but (2) the district court erred in rendering determinate sentences for each of Defendant's Class IV felonies. View "State v. Starks" on Justia Law